He says Jack Gerard from the American Petroleum Institute is wrong because he lobbies for big oil interests. Kaplan fails to mention how the heavily regulated oil industry is supposed to function without trying to influence legislators. Next, he says smaller oil companies should be exempt from “subsidies” because “they don't have the same flexibility concerning taxes, costs and prices of larger multinational firms.” He does not provide details about this “flexibility” on taxes, costs and prices. Kaplan also suggests that a nonpartisan, independent panel should decide how Big Oil is treated. What other industry gets this kind of special examination?

Finally, Kaplan says Big Oil needs to be taxed more because, in his eyes, it's so darned big. He cites the fact that the five largest oil companies made $900 billion in profit over a 10-year period. Big deal. I checked, and over the same 10-year period, Microsoft alone earned almost $400 billion. Kaplan should read up on the costs and risks of oil exploration and production versus those of the software business.

Big Oil better be big in order to take the billion-dollar risks it does. Big Oil's success provides Americans with a reliable supply of petroleum-based products that keep the economy moving in the right direction.

When Kaplan tells you that total profits appear to be 25 cents on the dollar, the operative word is “appear.” Industry profits, as a percentage of revenue, has a historical average of 8 percent to 12 percent – far below that of Microsoft, Google and Apple. Oil profits in absolute dollars are huge, but the industry is the largest employer and source of federal tax revenue in the nation.

Kaplan fails to note that corn-based ethanol fuel blends are heavily taxpayer-subsidized and cannot stand on economic merit. Consequently, these fuels cost about $1 per gallon in subsidies. We get 27 percent fewer miles per gallon on E85 as opposed to regular gasoline in a flex-fuel car. All alcohol-based fuels produce less mileage as they contain less specific energy than gasoline. It doesn't stop there, as the emissions from a flex-fuel car (using E85) contain 50 percent more carbon dioxide and a probable carcinogen (acetaldehyde).

Professor David Pimentel of Cornell University estimates that the total end-to-end process of creating one gallon of ethanol consumes 1.3 gallons of oil and covers the process from planting the corn seed to filling your gas tank, or in this case, your alcohol tank.

Moreover, federal ethanol subsidies and increasing production mandates have resulted in less corn available to the traditional users, causing their raw material costs to increase. Meat and poultry prices escalate as feed costs soar. It is estimated that 87 percent of all processed edibles on the grocery shelves contain corn meal, corn fructose and/or corn syrup. Corn-based cereals and breads that use corn sweeteners take a double hit. Even wheat prices have gone up because wheat farmers have switched to corn in order to reap more cash.

An objective look at government and the media push for ethanol shows that a tragic hoax has been foisted on the public.

Detroit is our model?

LAGUNA NIGUEL, William Jameson: President Barack Obama's view for our future was forged in his past. I grew up in the Detroit area and have seen the fallout from failed social projects. Don't get me wrong – the road to Detroit's demise was paved with good intensions.

It was everything that a young Obama could have dreamed of as a community organizer. During the Civil War, it was the last station for the Underground Railroad. It was the birthplace of unions. In 1950, it was the fifth most-populated city in the nation. In 1960, it had the highest per capita income in the country. During World War II, President Roosevelt christened it the “arsenal of democracy.” It's a city that created its own art form and called it “Motown.”

How could a city that had this much, lose it all to become a shell of its former self?

Mr. President, Detroit was the Petri dish of social engineering. What would you have done differently? Is Detroit the model for the country you wanted to fundamentally change us into?

____________

MISSION VIEJO, John Rette: The headline “White House outlines potential cuts” [News, Feb. 9] is wrong. All that President Obama did was to try to create fear that major budget cuts will affect the national security and the economy. Not one iota of proposed cuts was given; nothing to reduce the $16 trillion debt.

Obama proposed the mandatory budget cuts in 2011. Now he wants only small cuts. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts a deficit increase this year of $845 billion. The government borrows 24 cents for every dollar it spends.

The Register article quotes Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who praised “the administration for releasing ‘compelling information' on the impact of spending cuts.” She added that the “public has a right to understand how sequester would impact middle-class families, jobs and the economy.”

There was not one iota of information on how to cut the deficit. This routine is merely an effort to create public anxiety. Congress must pass a balanced budget and meaningful reduction to impact the $16 trillion debt.

Remember Fort Hood

SAN CLEMENTE, John Hartman: During his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama acknowledged some of the families of recent shooting victims. He asserted that all these victims, pointing specifically at the Newtown, Conn., Tucson and Aurora, Colo., tragedies, deserved a “vote” in Congress that addresses gun violence.

I found it curious how he has conveniently forgotten to mention the families of the shooting victims at Fort Hood, Texas, where for the past three years our government has refused to move forward with the prosecution of the radical Islamic perpetrator Nidal Malik Hasan.

Surely the family members of the Fort Hood shooting deserve a “vote,” too?

Truth about Texas

TUSTIN, Tom Parker: Register columnist Jonathan Lansner makes a case that Texas suffers more workplace deaths than California does [“The dark side of Texas jobs,” Business, Feb. 14]. However, he forgot to mention that Texas had 1,033,635 fewer unemployed in December 2012 than California did. In particular, California's construction industry declined quite rapidly between 2003 and 2008. Fewer people working means less chance of accidents around heavy machinery.

I've found that numbers don't lie. Using percentages in this way is disingenuous.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.